(06-30-2018 07:32 AM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 08:02 PM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 06:06 PM)Gakusei Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 05:52 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Are you kidding? For weeks leading up to the vote, the media sold the lie that Pai was about to rob Americans of their free and open internet, driving the left hysterical.

I mean, that isn't inaccurate. Right now we're at the mercy of ISPs on whether or not they feel like being good citizens. There's currently nothing to stop AT&T, for example, from saying that DirecTV Now has a performance guarantee for AT&T internet customers; Pay $4.99 per month to guarantee top speeds for other video services like YouTube, Netflix, Hulu, etc.

Free college. Why not free internet?

Jugheads rule!

No one is asking for that? What we are asking for is open access when we go onto the internet.

Net neutrality has nothing to do with open access. The net neutrality order was issued in 2015 and rescinded in 2017. Prior to 2015, there was complete and open access, and there has been in the 7 months since it was rescinded.

Most of what you guys are referring to as "net neutrality" (the throttling of service based upon use type) is already covered in anti-trust law. There was a provider that blocked vonage because they also had a competing phone service. This would be covered under anti-trust. You can not block, price differently, or otherwise manipulate pricing of the ISP service in order to restrict other product offerings in the mix. That is a violation of anti-trust laws.

If an ISP wants to block your use of bit torrent, they can. If an ISP wants to block or raise your ISP price to access bittorrent because they sell a competing product, that would be unlawful.